# The US lifting of trade sanctions on Cuba would be bad for Habano lovers...discuss



## yaqui (Apr 11, 2011)

Hey guys,

Just a little banter to get us thinking about what would happen if the US was to lift the trade embargo we have on Cuba, and Habanos were no longer hard to come by. I think this may happen within the next five years.

I think the price of Habanos would go up as market demand would also increase due to fair trade. What do you guys think? Could the every day price possibly go down?


----------



## Laynard (Oct 10, 2013)

Prices would go up because every Joe Schmo would be buying up our favorites easily. Do to the increased demand, there is also a possibility quality would suffer.

Just my opinion.


----------



## Tobias Lutz (Feb 18, 2013)

I think prices would go up across the board, but I also believe would improve as well. Capitalism has a way of weeding out s*#& quality when it is trying to pass alongside something of similar price and better quality. Who knows, maybe Quinteros would stop looking as if they had rocks rolled up inside them :lol:


----------



## Mitch (Oct 2, 2009)

That would be great, Padron 26 and 64 may go down &#55357;&#56835;


----------



## TonyBrooklyn (Jan 28, 2010)

opcorn::martini::smoke:


----------



## US2China (Sep 18, 2012)

Initially you would see a jump, but then the prices would return to where they are - once the novelty of Cubans wore off. We would probably see more Cubans rated cigar of the year, and those would become harder to find and more expensive for the following months.


----------



## UTKhodgy (Jan 4, 2012)

Dont forget taxes! Prices would never be the same.


----------



## Laynard (Oct 10, 2013)

UTKhodgy said:


> Dont forget taxes! Prices would never be the same.


Ah man, and me being in Cali. A BPC would probably be $15 for a single! I don't even what to think about Cohibas. If this did happen, would US get regional releases?


----------



## asmartbull (Aug 16, 2009)

This ban is not going to be lifted. .....the only thing that may ease is the travel ban..........


----------



## The invisible man (Dec 18, 2012)

asmartbull said:


> This ban is not going to be lifted. .....the only thing that may ease is the travel ban..........


I believe the trade embargo has not been lifted as of yet because Castro/Raul Castro is still in power.
No president of this country is going to lift an embargo that was placed by JFK, probably the most beloved president in history,after he was assasinated.

It's deeper than politics,keeping that embargo in place is just as much a sign of respect to JFK as anything else.

Now even though I don't believe it will be lifted within the next 5 years,I believe It will eventually be lifted. But it is not going to happen until the Castros are dead and gone.

And the day it is lifted,prices will sky rocket and every and any Habano worth having would be a total pain in the ass to obtain.


----------



## cigarmax (Feb 23, 2011)

The reason the embargo hasn't been lifted is due to the fact that there is a large cuban constituency in a key electoral state, Florida, which are opposed to a lifting of the embargo. The embargo will only be removed by a President who is leaving office and not running for re-election or if Fidel Castro dies. I believe prices would rise at least temporarily due to increased demand, a Serie D or Cohiba Robusto would be America's new "Flying Pig".


----------



## asmartbull (Aug 16, 2009)

While the political situation in FL is a huge part of you it isn't going to be lifted, the economics doesn't make sense. 
The US has entered into many long term trade agreements which has virtually guaranteed the ban is lifting...we gain nothing by lifting the ban and their poor economy won't help exports....it's actua) you more about the money than the politics..and I like things the way they are


----------



## Mante (Dec 25, 2009)

On the title alone. I am a Cuban Cigar smoker. Would the US lifting a trade embargo be bad for me? Hmmm...I dont know if I really give a crap either way. Consider the thought that there are many in this world that smoke cubans and have nothing to do with the embargo. 

Just playing devil's advocate under the exact premise of the question asked as not all cigar smokers reside in the US.


----------



## cakeanddottle (Mar 14, 2011)

exactly what good does the embargo do the US citizen 50 years later? What was it supposed to do, force them to change to a style of government we approve of? Well then it failed! 

You want these people to be more like us? Pump them full of our dollars. The embargo is a joke.


----------



## asmartbull (Aug 16, 2009)

US citizens will be able to travel to Cuba decades before we trade with them.....and frankly, tourism would do more for the island than free trade.
The US would end up going to fix their infrastructure and would actually ensure that The average Cuban benifits the most.....No big benifit for the US to trade... and the GOV of Cuba would benifit much more than the average citizen.....and for those of us that enjoy their tobacco, wait to see how much it cost with the US tax


----------



## Perfecto Dave (Nov 24, 2009)

Still get mine from the same place even if they were sold here legally.
I believe quality will suffer till the novelty for most wear off. Fakes will run even more ramped.


----------



## GeauxTigers (Mar 4, 2013)

Yep - the two things I would be concerned with: Taxes and Fakes.

Here's to hopin' asmartbull is right on his speculations.:beerchug::beerchug::beerchug::beerchug:


----------



## Stillinger (Jan 29, 2013)

While the Cubans living in Florida mean Congress and a President will never have the stomach to lift a ban, it's also directly linked to our agricultural industry. Their lower wages, cheaper production and in some ways better farming areas would directly compete with fruit, sugar, tobacco and other products that have a pretty strong lobby in DC. 

As for the embargo working or not, I do still lean towards caution in knowing that Castro wasn't exactly a good guy (putting it lightly) and his regime has destroyed many a family. 

Either way, I do think at some point it will be lifted, but more because the Cuban people change their government or allow a form of capitalism closer to what we're used to, rather than anything the Embargo or US government does. 


On what will it do to the market? Well, I've thought about it quite a bit, but I think it would lead towards an uptick in general sales of cigars. It will also lead to more cigars offering 'habana/havana' seed, or cubano style in the hope to catch the sales boom. You will also see a decline in quality of general cigars as people pump out cheap 'cuban-esque' cigars. As for our known and loved CCs? I don't think they'll change too much. Maybe they're slightly harder to get because there's a market for them initially, and there's a good chance that prices will go up a few dollars a stick across the board, but I think what you'll see more is a lack of consistency from your major brands. You'll see more premium and special releases, but less consistency in the lower end stuff as habanos tries to keep it going. 

As for Taxes, meh, I'm not concerned. I still would probably end up shopping online.


----------



## magoo6541 (Mar 9, 2014)

So I'm thumbing through some of the older threads and this caught my eye and I feel that the most important aspect was missed.

I feel the same as a lot of you guys in that the embargo will not be lifted as long as the Castros are still in power. I do agree that if anything happens soon, it'll be travel restrictions as those have been recently relaxed and will relax further.

The one thing that wasn't mentioned is: Trademarks. Every Cuban company (or almost every) has their trademark already registered in the US and therefore, cannot be sold. Cohiba, Romeo y Julita, La Gloria Cubana, Montecristo, Trinidad, Partagás ect ect ect. Therefore, there would be huge battles over who owns those names. Those legal battles would last for years and I don't think anyone will be willing to give up their established name.

I believe that Habanos S.A. sued General Cigar in the US over the use of "Cohiba" a while ago. Habanos S.A. lost their lawsuit.


----------



## TonyBrooklyn (Jan 28, 2010)

Cubatabaco Gets Win in Cohiba Trademark Case Against General Cigar Co. | halfwheel


----------



## GeauxTigers (Mar 4, 2013)

magoo6541 said:


> So I'm thumbing through some of the older threads and this caught my eye and I feel that the most important aspect was missed.
> 
> I feel the same as a lot of you guys in that the embargo will not be lifted as long as the Castros are still in power. I do agree that if anything happens soon, it'll be travel restrictions as those have been recently relaxed and will relax further.
> 
> ...


When it come to Trademark Law - there are two things to consider.

1 - Is there a brand confusion that occurs. This requires that the names/brand are in similar industries in the same market. Since CC are not in the American Market, there is no trademark infringement... at this time.

2 - If there is brand confusion between two names/brands in the same industry and in the same market, then the name/brand that can be proven to be established first is the winner.

In your scenario, if the Cuban Embargo is lifted we would have several brands (as you mentioned) that would create brand confusion -- then it would be up to the courts to decide where the brand originated. It would seem that there is clear evidence for this, and it would not take long to settle. A more interesting angle on this, and one that I think will keep CC embargo'ed for the rest of my life, is the power of General Cigar to lobby our corrupt politicians. Money in the pockets earns the votes these days - this will lead to the embargo continuing for years to come. :2


----------



## GeauxTigers (Mar 4, 2013)

Also on the lobbying thingy - if I remember right, there is one company that owns a big chunk of Habanos SA -- and also owns one of the major players in the American cigar market. It is obviously in their best interest to have the embargo remain. Two revenue streams.


----------



## MDSPHOTO (Sep 10, 2013)

GeauxTigers said:


> When it come to Trademark Law - there are two things to consider.
> 
> 1 - Is there a brand confusion that occurs. This requires that the names/brand are in similar industries in the same market. Since CC are not in the American Market, there is no trademark infringement... at this time.
> 
> ...


I'm guessing you are a barrister since you seem to have a good handle on it. I always thought it was the first to apply for the trademark and achieve a registered/copyright mark regardless of who launched it first. By definition a brand owner can only own the brand if they registered it, correct? Hence the reversal of the Cohiba decision since that mark was previously registered by Cohiba and then clearly copied by General. Where as the other Cuban brands with U.S. cousins would not have a claim against General since according to the article the names were "seized" by the Cuban government, while General filed first on those marks.


----------



## tnlawyer (Jul 17, 2013)

LOL there's a banner ad at the top of my screen for Cohiba Nicaragua. Too funny...


----------



## GeauxTigers (Mar 4, 2013)

MDSPHOTO said:


> I'm guessing you are a barrister since you seem to have a good handle on it. I always thought it was the first to apply for the trademark and achieve a registered/copyright mark regardless of who launched it first. By definition a brand owner can only own the brand if they registered it, correct? Hence the reversal of the Cohiba decision since that mark was previously registered by Cohiba and then clearly copied by General. Where as the other Cuban brands with U.S. cousins would not have a claim against General since according to the article the names were "seized" by the Cuban government, while General filed first on those marks.


To the best of my understanding, and the few cases i have read - the precedence has been established that it is first "provable" public usage which establishes the TM. The point of registering in the US is to run your due diligence on a brand before you launch. It is expensive to create a new brand and launch it -- and if you find out a year latter that somebody already had been using the brand... well - it's painful.

Also - Not a lawyer. Please seek Legal advice else where.  
I own a Brand Marketing Agency... so I have had this talk with several lawyers. They have all had pretty much the same answer on this issue.


----------



## magoo6541 (Mar 9, 2014)

TonyBrooklyn said:


> Cubatabaco Gets Win in Cohiba Trademark Case Against General Cigar Co. | halfwheel


That's interesting and was unaware of this. How is Cohiba still marketing and selling in the US then? I'm assuming that they are appealing the decision then and are allowed to use that name until they've exhausted their resources?


----------



## magoo6541 (Mar 9, 2014)

GeauxTigers said:


> When it come to Trademark Law - there are two things to consider.
> 
> 1 - Is there a brand confusion that occurs. This requires that the names/brand are in similar industries in the same market. Since CC are not in the American Market, there is no trademark infringement... at this time.
> 
> ...


Good points and good information. Unfortunately, when it comes to Cuban cigars, the waters are anything but clear. There are only 2 companies that are clearly the property of Habanos S.A., Cohiba and Trinidad. The rest were taken from their owners.

Montecristo is a good example to use since the pre-revolution owners Menéndez and García fled Cuba to reestablish the brand in the Dominican Republic. Menéndez and García should be considered the rightful owner of the Montecristo trademark (along with H. Upmann) world wide since their company was essentially stolen from them by the nationalization of the tobacco industry in post revolution Cuba. Technically though, Habanos S.A. is the current owner, disputed of course, of the original factories with the original recipes for the vitolas of cigars coming out of Cuba.

So who would get the trademark?

That court battle would be endless.

Instead of making another post, I'll just edit to add this:



GeauxTigers said:


> Also on the lobbying thingy - if I remember right, there is one company that owns a big chunk of Habanos SA -- and also owns one of the major players in the American cigar market. It is obviously in their best interest to have the embargo remain. Two revenue streams.


That would be Imperial Tobacco which bought Altadis S.A.. They own half of Habanos S.A. along with Consolidated Cigar Corp and JR Cigars.


----------



## TanZ2005 (Jun 25, 2006)

I think it was missed that in 2013 General has won the fight over the TM in the USA

Press Release: General Cigar Prevails over Cubatabaco in Trademark Dispute | halfwheel

Would be interesting to see what would happen if the Embargo was lifted. I think they would have to TM under Cohiba Habanos to keep the mark different. I don't know just my 2cents From what I have heard we already have US people in Cuba starting business. Think because a lift is close. Only a guess in my part.


----------



## TonyBrooklyn (Jan 28, 2010)

Surely a country that has come this far can figure something out.


----------



## Heath (Aug 16, 2013)

things could get interesting in 2016 after Raul Castro steps down. I think he said 2016 or could be more of the same business as usual. I think we will see the embargo abolished probably sooner than later but probably not this decade. would it be bad for habanos lovers yes and no. there would be a period of the mad rush but as things go that wont last long and we would have greater easier access to them in the end. cost would probably be greater due to the usual unfair tax system we practice here. all in all I think the pros out weigh the cons on all levels and I believe its long past due to lift the embargo entirely and open free trade with cuba. we have enough enemies cuba could be a great partner weather they adhere to our political views or not.


----------



## TonyBrooklyn (Jan 28, 2010)

I personally see no monetary gains for America by lifting the Embargo.
Just another poor country for us to subsidise.
Right now America has way to many problems of its own IMHO.
In essence i believe that's why it was never lifted.
We trade with countries like China to name one.
That have far worst Human rights issues than Cuba has ever had will ever have.
The only people that suffer are the poor on the island.
For that reason and that reason alone i personally think the Embargo should be abolished.
As it [the Embargo] was originally intended it serves no useful purpose.


----------



## Heath (Aug 16, 2013)

I don't know I believe it probably has more to to with dumb politics I mean who wants to be the guy that's a communist (which by the way they're not communist more or less a dictatorship) sympathizer in washington and puts forth a motion to abolish it. we are all technically subsidizing them anyhow as it is why not be honest about it. as we know the global economy to be finite why not spread the love that way too who knows we might get some in return. I don't know Im just a poor landscaper. any monetary gains would be minimal after they are balanced. its really probably a push so why not lift it. another point id like to make. castor is not really that bad of a guy any one who says that really really needs to learn the history. once you do you'll discover the american backed Batista was one narly dude and castor really help them allot more than hurt them even though we dont agree with his political views it was what they needed at the time to get out from under batista's nasty regime. we didn't support the revolution so it's no wonder cuba sided against us during the cold war. again im just a poor landscaper and don't really know nothing. but sometimes understanding the past can help explain the present and give some insight to the future. I could be all wrong I barely graduated from highschool failed 9th grade english 3 times so don't take my word for it.


----------



## stltimmy1979 (Nov 1, 2013)

Heath said:


> I don't know I believe it probably has more to to with dumb politics I mean who wants to be the guy that's a communist (which by the way they're not communist more or less a dictatorship) sympathizer in washington and puts forth a motion to abolish it. we are all technically subsidizing them anyhow as it is why not be honest about it. as we know the global economy to be finite why not spread the love that way too who knows we might get some in return. I don't know Im just a poor landscaper. any monetary gains would be minimal after they are balanced. its really probably a push so why not lift it. another point id like to make. castor is not really that bad of a guy any one who says that really really needs to learn the history. once you do you'll discover the american backed Batista was one narly dude and castor really help them allot more than hurt them even though we dont agree with his political views it was what they needed at the time to get out from under batista's nasty regime. we didn't support the revolution so it's no wonder cuba sided against us during the cold war. again im just a poor landscaper and don't really know nothing. but sometimes understanding the past can help explain the present and give some insight to the future. I could be all wrong I barely graduated from highschool failed 9th grade english 3 times so don't take my word for it.


I can barely follow this rant...


----------



## Heath (Aug 16, 2013)

yeah I hate the small buttons on my phone. thats some aweful spelling too. my point really was for people to learn a bit more about the real history not the propagandized history. By purchasing cigars from overseas money goes back to cuba untaxed in the u.s. so technically similar to a subsidy although a stretch. all economic theory is finite so its really all even in the end. Castro was not the bad guy Batista was read about it somtime. I believe the reason for not lifting the embargo has more to do with rhetoric from washington than how it actually effects anyone's economy. I hope this is a better read or at least you get a good laugh


stltimmy1979 said:


> I can barely follow this rant...


----------



## TonyBrooklyn (Jan 28, 2010)

All i know is them damn Cubans shot and killed Sally Nucky's partner on Boardwalk Empire last night.

:banghead:


----------



## TonyBrooklyn (Jan 28, 2010)

The Real Reason It's Nearly Impossible to End the Cuba Embargo
Bill Clinton tried engaging Castro. After Havana shot down two U.S. planes, it all fell apart.
PETER KORNBLUH AND WILLIAM M. LEOGRANDE OCT 5 2014, 11:09 AM E

Reuters
"I think we should-we should advocate for the end of the embargo" on Cuba, Hillary Clinton said in an interview this summer at the Council on Foreign Relations. "My husband tried," she declared, "and remember, there were [behind-the-scenes] talks going on." The way the pre-candidate for president recounts this history, Fidel Castro sabotaged that process because "the embargo is Castro's best friend," providing him "with an excuse for everything." Her husband's efforts, she said, were answered with the February 1996 shoot-down of two U.S. civilian planes by the Cuban air force, "ensuring there would be a reaction in the Congress that would make it very difficult for any president to lift the embargo alone."

The history of this dramatic episode is far more complicated than Hillary Clinton portrays it. But she is correct about one thing: Should she become president, it will be far harder for her to lift the 50-year-old trade embargo against Cuba than it would have been when her husband first assumed the office. The person most responsible for that, however, is Bill Clinton.

* * *

The beginning of Bill Clinton's presidency marked a change in tone on Cuba policy. Personally, Clinton understood the folly of a hostile U.S. posture toward the island. "Anybody with half a brain could see the embargo was counterproductive," he later told a confidante in the Oval Office. "It defied wiser policies of engagement that we had pursued with some Communist countries even at the height of the Cold War."

The Clinton administration's early initiatives included public assurances that the United States posed no military threat to Cuba-to reinforce the point, U.S. officials began alerting Cuban authorities in advance of routine naval maneuvers near the island and opened low-level discussions on cooperation against narcotics trafficking. U.S. officials also dialed back the anti-Castro rhetoric. In Havana, the Cubans recognized and appreciated the change in tone. "There is less verbal aggression this year in the White House than in the last 12 years," Raúl Castro told a Mexican reporter. Still, the administration worked overtime to assure the exile community and congressional Republicans that no opening to Cuba would be forthcoming. U.S. policy, stated Richard Nuccio, the Clinton administration's special advisor on Cuba, was to "maintain the existing embargo, the most comprehensive we have toward any country."

"Anybody with half a brain could see the embargo was counterproductive."
Hard-liners in Congress were not reassured. Senate majority leader and Republican presidential hopeful Robert Dole declared that "all signs point to normalization and secret negotiations with Castro." In September 1995, the House passed legislation co-sponsored by Senator Jesse Helms and Representative Dan Burton that prohibited U.S. assistance to Cuba until the advent of democracy and imposed sanctions against foreign countries and corporations that did business on the island. "It is time to tighten the screws," Senator Helms announced when he first presented the bill to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Congressman Burton predicted that passage would be "the last nail in [Castro's] coffin."

Helms-Burton became a bitter battleground between the executive and the legislative branches. Not only did the bill "attack the President's constitutional authority to conduct foreign policy," according to a White House legislative-strategy memorandum for Clinton, "Helms-Burton actually damages the prospects of a democratic transition in Cuba, and could conflict with broader U.S. interests, including compliance with major international trade agreements ... and our commitment to respect international law." Secretary of State Warren Christopher threatened a presidential veto.

* * *

As the Helms-Burton legislation dominated public debate on Cuba policy in the latter half of 1995, a veritable Greek tragedy played out in the skies over Cuba's coast-a tragedy set in motion by repeated incursions into Cuban airspace by a group of Cuban-American pilots known as Brothers to the Rescue (BTTR). Since 1991, the Brothers had been flying search missions for distressed Cuban rafters who had begun to flee Cuba for the U.S. by the hundreds, and then by the thousands, notifying the U.S. Coast Guard whenever a small boat or raft needed rescue.

But despite its humanitarian mission, BTTR's founder and director, José Basulto, had a history of anti-Castro violence. In April 1961, Basulto had, along with some 1,500 Cuban exiles trained by the CIA, participated in the failed Bay of Pigs invasion aimed at overthrowing Castro. In August 1962, he had positioned a boat with a 20mm cannon on its bow just off the coast of Havana and shelled the Hornedo de Rosita hotel, where he and his co-conspirators believed Castro would be dining. "I was trained as a terrorist by the United States, in the use of violence to attain goals," Basulto said in an interview with a documentary filmmaker, but he claimed to have converted to nonviolence. "When I was young, my Hollywood hero was John Wayne. Now I'm like Luke Skywalker. I believe the force is with us."

After secret back-channel diplomacy ended the rafters crisis in the fall of 1994, Basulto shifted BTTR's mission from rescue to provocation. On November 10, Basulto dropped Brothers to the Rescue bumper stickers over the Cuban countryside. Repeatedly over the next eight months, BTTR planes violated Cuban airspace. Their most provocative act in 1995 came on July 13, when Basulto's Cessna Skymaster buzzed Havana, raining down thousands of religious medallions and leaflets reading "Brothers, Not Comrades" along the Malecón, Havana's broad seaside avenue. "We are proud of what we did," Basulto exalted on local TV after landing back in Miami. "We want confrontation," Basulto declared, boasting that his bold incursion served "as a message to the Cuban people. ... The regime is not invulnerable."

José Basulto, founder of Brothers to the Rescue,
in 1996 (Colin Braley/Reuters)
The overflights constituted a direct challenge to Cuba's national security and a flagrant affront to its sovereignty. "It was so humiliating," Castro later told Time magazine. "The U.S. would not have tolerated it if Washington's airspace had been violated by small airplanes." Castro and his generals had long memories of the early years of the revolution when little planes would take off from Florida and drop incendiary devices over the Cuban countryside as part of the CIA's covert war of sabotage.

:dunno::martini::new_all_coholic:


----------



## Aithos (Jul 13, 2014)

Some interesting thoughts in this thread, but if you want my opinion it can be summed up pretty simply (although I'll expand after): it would be very much like marijuana being legalized in Washington and Colorado, people would make a big fuss about it in the media and then 99% of people wouldn't even consider it or be affected by it in any way.

Essentially, it wouldn't change anything. The USA isn't the only consumer of cigars in the world, we may be a big one but Cuba is already providing cigars to the USA, it just isn't doing so legally. Just like if pot was suddenly legalized there wouldn't be a mass shortage, the same people already supplying it would still be supplying it. They just wouldn't have to hide it and so supply could ramp up production and shipping because no longer would there be a need for cloak and dagger to smuggle the goods in. It's pretty naive (no offense intended, just my opinion) to think that suddenly demand would go up 10000% (and stay there) and supply would suddenly vanish for any significant period. Would certain sticks be harder to get? Probably, but on the other hand others would be much easier to get so it would all balance out. I've always been of the opinion that you're either the kind of person who wants to do something or you aren't, and in the case of something like pot or CC the legality just doesn't really factor in to it for most people.

As for the pricing, nothing would really change either. You can already buy cigars online and so local taxes don't apply, until the government does something about people shopping online and not reporting their purchases with their taxes each year there isn't anything to enforce those taxes anyway. There might be a quick surge in prices due to the publicity and a bunch of people initially trying the "forbidden" fruit, but then all those people who weren't really enthusiasts or regular consumers in the first place would stop buying and things would settle down again. All markets have ups and downs based on demand, nothing new here. A cigar wins cigar of the year or gets a high rating and it's value and demand goes up, a cigar gets overstocked and suddenly CBID has a "KILLER deal of the century that's even better than the ones that you've gotten every day for three months" on that cigar...

I would be surprised if the embargo goes on for another 5-10 years, just like I'll be surprised if in the next decade marijuana isn't just legalized on a federal level. The simple fact is that it's readily available for anyone who cares to get it, it's become ingrained in our culture whether the older people (and politicians) care to admit it and it's doing this country more harm than good. Not just from an economic perspective where we could *desperately* use the tax revenue, but also on the front of people going to jail and becoming hardened criminals in our awful prison system for selling pot. That's a different topic though, I just bring it up because there are a lot of similarities from a legal standpoint.


----------

